Court of Appeal upholds convictions in Encrochat case

Introduction and Background

The Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of Jason Russo, Jamil Ahmed, and Mohammed Miah, who were found guilty of conspiracy to encourage or assist in the commission of offences through the supply of Encrochat devices. The case, which was heard on 14 February 2025, involved the use of highly encrypted mobile phones that were widely used in serious criminal activities.

Facts of the Case

From 2015, Russo, Ahmed, and Miah worked together at a Kwikfit branch in Luton, with Russo as the manager. They became involved in supplying Encrochat devices, which were used exclusively for encrypted communications, often by those engaged in criminal activities. The devices were supplied to individuals introduced by a figure known as Staunch, who was not part of the proceedings as he could not be located.

Trial and Convictions

The defendants were tried at Luton Crown Court and convicted on a single count of conspiracy to encourage or assist in the commission of offences, specifically the supply of Class A drugs. The prosecution argued that the defendants knew the devices would be used for illegal activities, and the jury was directed to be sure of the defendants' knowledge of the intended criminal use of the devices before convicting.

Appeal Arguments

On appeal, the defendants argued that the offence charged was not known to law, as it was akin to a conspiracy to aid and abet, which is not recognised. They also contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove their knowledge of the criminal use of the devices and that the trial judge's questioning of Russo rendered his trial unfair.

Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants' arguments, affirming that conspiracy to commit an offence under section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is a recognised offence. The court found no merit in the argument that the trial judge's questioning of Russo led to an unfair trial, noting that any potential prejudice was addressed by the judge's subsequent directions to the jury.

Legal Implications

This case reaffirms the legal standing of conspiracy to commit offences under section 46 of the 2007 Act and clarifies the application of inchoate liability in the context of supplying devices used for criminal purposes. The judgment underscores the importance of secure communications in facilitating organised crime and the legal responsibilities of those supplying such technology.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions of Russo, Ahmed, and Miah were upheld. The case highlights the complexities of prosecuting offences involving modern technology and encrypted communications.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.